Yep, my blog and book series is all about Healing Hereafter, especially in regard to the after-we-die hereafter. But we also partner with worldwidehousechurch.org to heal hereafters of folks alive now who are in need. And it’s really hard to do that genuinely or effectively if we don’t at least consider the 40-50 million abortions occurring globally each year, as well as the pro-choice position that gives allowance and access to them. When I consider the pro-choice position, I consider it as I do any other position on any other issue. Does it make intuitive sense? Is it supported by science? Does it encourage or even mandate inconsistency or hypocrisy? Does it offer a positive, mature, moral, and fulfilling pursuit or legacy? And is there a better alternative? I could also include religious considerations, but the value of these is less agreed upon, and they would only further support a conclusion that is already inescapable when the above questions are objectively explored.
I don’t expect you to accept what I’m about to say by itself. But whatever you feel about it, at least give me the chance to back it up below before you judge it. Clearly, enough is at stake to hear someone out who is relying primarily on logic and science, parameters anyone should be able to value. As far as I can determine, the only conclusion the questions above allow for is that the pro-choice position is intuitively, logically, medically, and morally indefensible, and it relies on several common and manipulative myths to distract us from all the reasons why. And the cost to humanity of such manipulation has been quite arguably greater than any other manipulation known. Explore with me both these myths and these reasons, to decide for yourself.
A caveat as we do. When we’re dealing with the potential death of over a billion humans, we can’t afford to water down facts or avoid the hard parts of this issue. But the facts and insights discussed are always to examine the issue, not to attack people. If you feel offended, it is not intended. Truly, nothing below is stated with any motive of degradation or superiority, and I hope that is your sense too. We just can’t try to find meaningful truth without bringing up considerations that intersect with our personal paths in emotional ways. I use a more analytical approach to de-personalize some insights, and the ultimate goal – as you’ll see at the end – is always exploration toward positive ends, never condemnation toward negative ends. While the journey to assess truth is usually hard – as it might be below – the excitement, hope, opportunity, and self-value it offers (and that I intend for everyone reading this) is always worth it.
Pro-choice Myth #1: An unborn embryo/fetus is not truly alive, not truly a human, or not truly a person.
How developed an embryo is has no bearing on whether or not it is alive, human, or wrong to kill, because the human body never stops developing, from conception to death. Your body’s cells are developing, maturing, and dying just as they were when you were an embryo, only in different ways. Genes continue to be turned on and off, different proteins and hormones are made, and various parts of your body progress and regress all throughout life, prenatal and postnatal. As a physician, I can professionally and authoritatively assure you that it is totally arbitrary and biased to choose a point anywhere between conception and death when a human has developed enough to only then be wrong to kill, because s/he is never done developing.
This is why arguing about whether life, humanity, or personhood begins with the first heartbeat, brainwave, or ability to sense pain is pointless. You can have a perfect heart and brain, but without lungs, skin, kidneys, a liver, intestines, etc., you’re dead. And you can’t have any of these at any stage without going through all the preceding developmental steps. Designating one vital organ that matters or one point in its development that matters is completely subjective and meaningless. There is no objective point when a heart becomes a heart, or when a brain becomes a brain. In fact, it’s well known that the heart and brain aren’t fully developed until after birth, years later according to some parameters! Yet abortion proponents don’t support killing infants, even though this argument mandates that they should! Every point in development contributes to being a person, whether it’s cells differentiating into heart muscle, your brain and tongue learning together how to talk, or your reproductive system maturing to the point when you can make babies. If a newborn never developed beyond its status as a newborn, would we still consider it a person? If not, then why is it wrong to kill a newborn? If so, then why is it OK to kill an embryo, who can do virtually everything a newborn can (receive nutrition, move, make waste, etc.)?
We choose to view birth as this monumental change in human status, but medically it is just one relatively small change amongst thousands of others that happen to the body throughout all of life. A newborn is no less dependent on others once s/he is born than in the womb. S/he gains no significant abilities once delivered over what s/he had beforehand. Just a different environment and the body’s response to it. We wouldn’t cease to be a human or person if we were immersed in a hot tub and received our oxygen and nutrients through tubes, so why would that be true of an unborn child who does exactly that? To say an action is morally acceptable before birth that isn’t acceptable after birth doesn’t make sense, scientifically or logically. And if sweeping developmental change or self-sustenance are defensible indicators for life, humanity, or personhood, then it should only be wrong to kill someone after puberty, when both physical maturation and independence are most accelerated!
Growth, development, maturity, personality, social ability, functionality, physical skills, ability to survive, and learning never stop progressing from conception, right through birth, childhood, and adulthood. Thus, a genetically distinct living human organism – which everyone agrees begins at conception – must always be a person or never be a person. Life, humanity, and personhood can only objectively begin at conception or never at all. And nobody believes we are never humans or persons. So if it’s ever wrong to kill someone because they’re alive, a human, or a person, then it’s just as wrong to kill them prenatally as postnatally. Even in 2020 – a uniquely deadly year by non-abortion causes – abortion still caused well over 75% of human life years lost in the US. No other cause is anywhere near as deadly – COVID-19 cost 4% of US human life years in 2020 (Click to tweet). When a position involves the even the potential – and in reality actual – death of millions of living human persons, there is a high burden of proof on it to be objectively and/or scientifically verified. It seems the opposite of this pro-choice myth is far more verifiable instead.
Pro-choice Myth #2: Abortion is not wrong because it involves a being that does not consciously think, suffer, or desire to live; it only has the potential to.
Whether or not one feels embryos or fetuses are alive, humans, or persons, it is not just their existence up to that point that is terminated when they are aborted. It is every day of their future life that is erased as well. Oddly, some believe abortion is acceptable because it’s primarily only this potential life, not proven life already lived, that is being destroyed. This makes no sense, both because life already lived is never destroyed when someone dies and because potential life is the entire reason any murder is wrong! It’s not a crime to shoot someone the second after they die, because murder is only bad for destroying potential life, not life already lived. Thus, the more potential life an act is likely to destroy, the more disastrous it is, with abortion of an embryo most catastrophic of all. Almost every day of his/her physical existence is destroyed! Moreover, every day of his/her potential descendants’ lives are eliminated also. If your grandma had been aborted, your mom and her siblings would have never lived, you and your siblings and cousins would have never lived, and so on. That is an awful lot of life destroyed, hundreds and hundreds of life years (and eventually thousands and millions), annihilated in one act of abortion! And none of these people chose to give those lives up! It seems the pro-choice position should favor hundreds and thousands of people being able to choose life rather than one or two choosing against it, doesn’t it?
But even if we just consider the one embryo being aborted, s/he is clearly being robbed of a whole life without his/her consent, not just a few weeks in the womb. If you were asked today if it would have been OK if you were aborted as an embryo, would you say yes? Of course not, because you would have been robbed of the years of life that you’ve already lived, in addition to whatever life you have left! Humans almost universally consider the death of a child more tragic than that of an elderly person, because the former “never got a chance”, while the latter “at least lived a full life”. Do you think that child (or even a teen or adult) truly understands the value of the life s/he has yet to live? Do they have any more potential life guaranteed to them than an embryo? Of course not! So why does it matter that an embryo doesn’t either? If it’s tragic for a toddler to be killed, it’s far more tragic for an embryo to be killed, because more potential life has been destroyed! Yet many who descry a shooting at a preschool would have been totally fine with those same murdered children being dismembered or poisoned to death just a few years earlier – and by their own parents! At least the toddler was able to experience light, food, walking, talking, relationships, learning skills, and happiness! The embryo was robbed of everything, including those things.
Just because you weren’t consciously aware of your potential life as an embryo doesn’t mean it’s OK to take it away, right? After all, an infant, comatose person, or sleeping person is no more consciously aware of his potential life than an embryo is. Neither do they demonstrate any more conscious desire or choice to live than an embryo. Like the embryo, their bodies only show the potential desire to live by the unconscious processes of the body clearly laboring to keep the individual alive. Yet we would all consider it wrong and a crime to kill any of these postnatal humans, so why not the embryo too? Similarly, just because you may not (and I stress the “may” heavily because we don’t really know) be consciously aware of pain as an embryo, that does not mean it’s OK to kill you. If the ability to sense pain makes terminating a life right or wrong, anyone should be able to shoot you in your mouth while you take a nap without penalty! You’d never feel it, be sad about it, suffer from it, or even be aware of it. And as far as being missed is concerned, ask any mother who has miscarried if she misses her unborn child or thinks about him/her often. Regardless, someone else’s feelings or memories (or lack thereof) of you cannot make you cease to be a person, human, or alive anyway.
Pro-choice Myth #3: The pro-life position is anti-freedom, anti-feminist, or doesn’t care about women/moms.
The pro-choice position claims to be pro-freedom and pro-female, yet it is one of the most coercive, anti-feminist positions ever proposed. First, millions of women are killed each year by those supporting the pro-choice position, as half of all children aborted are female. Is it more feminist or female-friendly to give a female the choice to kill another female or give a female the choice to live? Is it more humane to kill to avoid a relatively small sacrifice to yourself or to allow someone else to live?
Second, every choice the pro-choice position gives a person is a choice that is taken away from another. When one considers that the choice given is to avoid the complications of pregnancy and the choice taken away is to be able to live, the pro-choice position actually removes far more choice and freedom than it gives, for women and for men. Logically, being pro-choice is being anti-choice. Again, some may argue that we don’t know that an embryo or fetus wants to live, yet every process happening in his/her body, every calorie that’s consumed, and every action that’s taken – gasping for liquid breath, processing nutrients, sleeping for growth, moving for exercise and coordination – everything is for survival. Leave him/her alone and s/he will do everything in his/her power to survive and to get you to assist in survival! Every unborn child tries their best to live. Some may also argue that a mother chooses abortion for the child’s good. However, how many of us, even taking into account all the hardships of our lives, would argue that not existing at all would have been better than the life we got? And how on earth can the mother predict how good or bad her child’s whole life will be? Ask someone who is considering suicide – at any other point in his/her life – whether s/he believes it would be worth it. The vast, vast, vast majority of the time, they would say absolutely not. A person himself, even as an adult, cannot say that his future life wouldn’t be worth living, so how can a parent make such a claim about his/her child, who isn’t even born?
And even if a parent feels this can be predicted, or if a mom knows she can’t afford to care for the child, why not make an adoption plan for her child then? Thousands of people (my wife and I were two of them) are waiting to give a child the best opportunities possible for a successful, happy life. Yet Planned Parenthood reports that they only refer one mother to an adoption agency for every 120 abortions they perform. An abortion can never reliably be performed for the child’s good, because the future (especially the distant future) is unknown, future life is virtually always preferred to death, and there are plenty of alternative ways to improve the child’s chances at a fulfilling life. Even those born with chronic illnesses for which fetuses are often aborted – such as Down’s syndrome – will overwhelmingly tell you they prefer their life to non-existence. I know life isn’t always rosy for these folks, but the ones I see with Down’s Syndrome often seem more satisfied with life than typical people! Regardless, what gives anyone but that person the right to choose whether or not his/her life will be worthwhile?
Third, being able to choose abortion supposedly empowers women. Probably the most unique, beautiful, defining ability of a woman over a man is the ability to bear children. A woman has the parts needed; a man doesn’t. A woman is able to do it; a man isn’t. A woman is better at it; a man is not. If anything should define femininity, female empowerment, and female uniqueness, it is embracing pregnancy, nurturing the pregnancy, delivering the child, and mothering the child. Voluntarily rejecting these inherent capabilities and unique gifts is unbelievably anti-feminist! Does a man embrace his masculinity by rejecting and working against his physical strength, body hair, lower voice, testicular function, or other physiologically male attributes? Now of course I am not saying that one cannot embrace her womanhood if she is infertile or chooses not to become pregnant. I am simply saying that I love to see feminists who actually enjoy being women and all the value, skill, and beauty this entails, instead of voluntarily sacrificing and rejecting their inherent gifts so that they can confusingly become well, more like a man. It’s so refreshing to meet a woman who understands what talents and abilities set her apart from a man and embraces them – whether related to her uterus or not! I am so impressed by and somewhat jealous of that, because she is being someone I can’t. She is doing something I can’t. She is experiencing something I can’t. That is awesome, I’m wowed, and I want her to keep excelling at it! Because it’s needed, and I can’t do it! Does a woman truly feel more empowered and more feminine when she steps out of an abortion clinic, especially when she left a dead daughter behind? Really? To be pro-life seems far more pro-woman than to be pro-choice.
Pro-choice Myth #4: Rape and incest justify the pro-choice position
Rape and incest are perhaps the two most common reasons cited to adopt a pro-choice position. Yet Planned Parenthood (the Guttmacher Institute), a decidedly pro-choice organization, admits that only 1.5% of abortions occur due to rape or incest. And the significance of even this small number assumes the incest wasn’t between two consenting adults. This means if you’re only pro-choice to provide an exception in cases of rape or incest, you should only be pro-choice <1.5% of the time. At least 98.5% of the time you should be fighting for the pro-life position. You don’t buy a car if you only like how 1.5% of it works or looks, but you’d basically always buy one if you like how 98.5% of it works and looks. Likewise, you shouldn’t buy into or fight for a pro-choice position because you like 1.5% of what it stands for. Rather, you should feel comfortable adopting and fighting for a pro-life position that coincides with 98.5% of what you feel is important. And if the 1.5% is that important to you, then fight just as hard (or harder) to end abortion in the 98.5% of cases that don’t involve rape or incest as you would to preserve abortion in cases that do.
Finally, it obviously doesn’t make sense that even an absolutely, unequivocally horrible crime like the rape of one person justifies an even more consequential death of a different and totally innocent person. This is particularly true when the murder doesn’t do anything to erase the worst consequences of the rape; it eliminates arguably the least worst consequence! If you aren’t in the habit of punishing innocent uninvolved folks for the actions of the one responsible – particularly by killing them – you cannot justify killing the unborn in the case of rape or incest. Especially since the unborn are even more innocent than those folks.
Pro-choice Myth #5: Abortion is justified by the cost of pregnancy or parenting to the mother.
Please note, I fully believe that there cannot be justification for ending abortion without a comprehensive and easily accessible plan for women who would not be able to get them. And the track record of my time and money proves I believe this far more than that of most abortion proponents. Similarly, the people I’ve known throughout my life who have cared the most for pregnant women – including after delivery or abortion – are typically pro-life. But even with the most optimal and available help possible for pregnant women, there will still be millions of abortions each year. You will never make abortion rare – as many claim to desire – by only addressing the demand side. Why? Because a massive number of abortions occur because of a parent’s want to be free from the consequences of pregnancy (even if they don’t want an abortion), not because of a parent’s need to be free of the consequences of pregnancy. And I can prove it.
According to the Guttmacher Institute (who would never skew their stats in a pro-life direction), only 2% of abortions occur because of fear of abuse, and only 12% occur because of a woman’s physical health. And we’re not even told how severe these health problems are or if they’d be exacerbated by pregnancy. Regardless, a maximum of only 14% occur because of potential danger to the mother. Many causes involve financial need. But most of the rest of the causes have nothing to do with true need, only want. In fact, “want” is found quite frequently on this list! 38% of abortions happen because the woman just wanted to be done having kids! I’m not saying these are necessarily bad wants, but even the best demand side approach won’t do a bit of good decreasing abortions performed for these common reasons. So yes, we must offer optimal assistance to minimize abortions based primarily on need, but we must do something more to minimize the millions that do and will continue to remain. Unless, of course, one considers millions to be “rare”. These “want” abortions have most successfully been diminished by using insights like those in this document in our personal spheres to change public opinion. And by linking that change to political advocacy, votes, laws, and judicial decisions. In other words, by reducing the supply or availability of abortion. Therefore, anyone who truthfully claims to believe abortion should be rare must embrace what has successfully limited abortion on the demand and supply side, whatever has successfully limited both need and access.
As above, the costs of keeping a child are important discussion points. But they also can serve as distractions from the most important discussion point: Doing the greatest good and the least harm overall. Undoubtedly there is discomfort in discussing an instance of rape or incest. There are several financial pressures childbearing poses. There are many kids in foster care (but let’s not forget adoption!). And there are risks with illegal (and legal) abortions (and it’s a voluntary procedure). But here is the question that cannot be ignored or buried under these and other similar concerns: Are any of these detriments truly greater evils or more costly than the loss of a human’s – of one’s own child’s – entire physical existence? Any time a person asks a “but what about ____” question defending abortion, the above question must follow it, because what matters in the end is the net result of these decisions, not only the part we emotionally lean toward the most.
I acknowledge, disdain, and do much to minimize the great tragedies associated with (but also completely absent from) many decisions to abort. However, do the financial, time, or psychological costs to the mother ever equate to the cost of a human’s entire existence? Or are we amplifying the former cost in our mind to somehow convince ourselves that it does equate to the latter? Fortunately, this question can be easily answered, and by the mothers themselves! Simply ask any woman considering abortion the following – or be honest how you would answer if you were her. Would she rather 1) endure whatever cost pregnancy or an adoption plan would pose to her (ignoring the massive blessings of children, which we shouldn’t) or 2) forfeit the rest of her entire physical existence (ignoring the years she’s already lived, which we shouldn’t)? It is obvious that you and the vast majority of them would choose the former. And if so, these very women (not misogynists, politicians, or fundamentalists) who we are concerned about are undeniably telling us that the costs of pregnancy/childrearing/adoption planning – as significant as they can be – clearly do not approach the cost of even the partial loss of a human’s existence, let alone the loss of a human’s entire existence. The choices of the very women considering abortion would condemn any justification of it, even on the grounds of need!
Pro-choice Myth #6: The risk of pregnancy to the mother’s life justifies the pro-choice position.
To start, it is quite rare for the mother’s life to be at an equal or greater risk to the child’s. And it’s exceedingly rare for this to be the case with the child at an age when s/he can’t simply survive a C-section. This would remove the risk of death to both – obviously the best outcome. As above, such an unlikely occurrence should never determine one’s general position on a larger issue. Indeed, even most pro-choice folks don’t form other opinions on issues solely based on such rarities, so why this one? But even if the mother’s life was at significant risk more commonly, this justification for abortion still has no practical relevance at all! Think about it. If the mother’s life is truly at risk by the child living, and the child can’t survive a C-section that would optimally remove the risk to both lives, there are two options. Abort the child to save the mom, or keep the child in the womb and let the mom die. Except that if the child is too young to survive outside the womb, s/he dies if the mom dies anyway. Therefore, in the real world, there will never be a circumstance where the choice would be made to save an unborn child’s life by letting the mom die. Either the mom’s life wouldn’t actually be at risk, the child could survive C-section to eliminate that risk, or the child’s life would not be able to be saved by letting the mom die. If your defense of abortion is based on an exceedingly rare and practically impossible circumstance, it’s an invalid defense. Besides, even if the mother’s life were truly at risk, and the child could be saved by her dying, more years of human life will almost certainly be lost if it is the child that dies. I know that’s a technical point, but human life years are human life years, no how we feel about some versus others.
And it cannot be forgotten that the clear duty of a parent is to make sacrifices for the child, not for the child to make sacrifices for the parent. Children are meant to outlive and replace their parents. Perpetuating humanity is kind of the main reason for having them! And however emotionally uncomfortable it may be, it is imperative to openly admit in these conversations how much our own self-interest – even when not maliciously intended – truly plays a role in abortion. This is especially true in the large number of cases where the cost to even moderately affluent, well-supported mothers is relatively minimal – when true need is not driving the decision to abort. Even in abortion’s “best-case” (and also practically impossible) scenario of the mother’s life being in danger, one human loses its entire physical existence while the other benefits in a way that is always less than the cost – a net harm. I’ll concede that it’s easier for a man to point some of these things out, but the gender of a writer cannot change the logic of his/her words. If they are still true when a woman says them, they were true when a man said them. Moreover, I am quite convinced that many of the men (and of course women) I know would readily sacrifice themselves for their children if that choice had to be made. My wife has explicitly told me if I ever have to choose between her and one of our children, choose the child. I said the same to her, and I hope with all my heart that I still would in the moment. Self-sacrifice is what parents literally exist to do for their children, and none of us would have been born if they hadn’t.
Pro-choice Myth #7: Might makes right.
Because we are all developing, alive, human people, whether one day after conception, at your age, or one moment before death, we have no greater status than an embryo that gives us the right to end her life. We have no demonstrable or provable superiority, authority, or greater worth that makes it OK for us to terminate any innocent human life. What we do have over the embryo is power, and when we use that power to legalize or effect the killing of an innocent being of otherwise equal status (and equal or even greater potential status), it is an unjust, wrong abuse of that power. Pro-choice folks make this same argument all the time to oppose other human rights violations, most of which aren’t anywhere near fatal. They even make similar arguments to oppose violations that aren’t fatal against beings of far less status or potential status than unborn humans – even insects! So why is this hypocritical and non-authoritative abuse of power legal, and why does anyone think it should be? Why on earth would anyone support and exercise this power?
One small reason is misinformation, although it only requires simple logic without any particular education to deduce most of the information above. Other reasons are smokescreens, issues that are connected to abortion but should not significantly encourage one’s support of it, like the myths above. Some are arbitrarily fabricated (e.g. arguing when an embryo becomes alive, human, or a person). Some only very rarely happen in reality (e.g. rape, incest, or a mother having to die to save a child viable outside the womb). Some only offer half the story (e.g. focusing on need-based abortions and not want-based abortions). And some actually argue against abortion more than for it (e.g. the pro-choice position actually being more anti-choice and anti-feminist than the pro-life position). As we’ve seen, these smokescreens – really just distractions – do nothing to justify abortion, and yet they are the topics typically focused on when abortion is defended.
Why? How can the power abuse and injustice continue when these smokescreens are so flimsy? Why are such peripheral issues so often raised as knee-jerk defenses? We all know the answer if we’re willing to be honest. These distractions are employed – even subconsciously – to ignore and hide the primary reason abortion exists and is legal: Selfishness. One can only pretend to justify such an inconsistent and therefore hypocritical abuse of power, especially without an inherent, provable right or authority to such power. One can only convince himself such abuse is OK and not just selfish by desperately clinging to irrelevant and weak distractions, especially when it is for his own gain at the supreme sacrifice of his own child. The vast majority of the time, what pro-choice supporters are fighting for is nothing more than a perverse “right” to make sexually irresponsible decisions and not have to maturely or ethically navigate the consequences. The primary legacy of people who are pro-choice will be to kill the innocent to excuse the irresponsible. Statistically, logically, and factually, that is what they are predominantly fighting for, even if they don’t realize or believe it (Click to tweet).
This is even more problematic when considering that they would rarely – if ever – accept their own death as acceptable punishment for someone else’s mistake, only an innocent young human’s death as punishment for their mistakes. They spend huge amounts of time, energy, money, and emotional strength fighting for this hypocritical, indefensible, and immoral cause, as if there were no better way to use these finite resources to champion life, true feminism, and actual goodness. They feel that this terrible cause and legacy is so worthy that they are willing to terminate the lives of tens of millions of human people each year – male and female, often even their own children – as a necessary part of making this one of their life’s goals. What a catastrophic detriment to their own lives and to multitudes of women, men, and children in need! They are killing millions to kill millions more!
These same people would never sacrifice their money, time, and energy – let alone their children – to pass a law prohibiting a boss from being able to fire an employee who is late every day for work, nor would they fight for the right of a person who robbed their house to get out of jail free. So why should these irresponsible decisions be punished while devastating sexual irresponsibility should be so protected? How can such hypocrisy be “justified”, especially given its enormous cost? Selfishness. We want sexual irresponsibility, so we take it. We see or practice sexual irresponsibility, so we unjustifiably defend it as a right. We feel entitled to sexual irresponsibility, so we feel angry that someone might take it away. We become protective of sexual irresponsibility, so we become blind to its great cost. We are confronted with the cost, so we put up irrational smokescreens and false distractions to avoid reality. And we become so numb to the truth that we passively and/or actively kill millions to kill millions more. Hopefully, we become capable of blowing away the smoke, coming back to the truth, and fighting for what is logical, worthwhile, and right, instead of the opposite. Virtually any other cause is more defensible than abortion. Use your limited talents and resources for far better pursuits and a far greater legacy. The longer you delay, the more lives are lost.
The cost of abortion is far too great to ignore, stay silent about, or avoid due to emotional discomfort or insecurity. How can anyone justify eliminating the entire existence of an obviously innocent human – who cannot be objectively defined as anything but a living person – via the ripping apart or fatal poisoning of this person by the 1-2 individuals on the planet most responsible for his/her safety, nurturing, and life? If anything is wrong, abortion is. If anything is worth getting upset about, abortion is. If anything is worth speaking out against, abortion is. And if any act is worth eliminating from the future and restoring from the past, abortion is. Fortunately, with truth, humility, and boldness, such an act can be eliminated. Especially by those – who once supported abortion – deciding to use those past choices as enduring motivation to prevent as many future abortions as possible. What a beautiful reversal! What a life-giving redemption! What a way to turn the loss of one into the preservation of so many! What a way to heal hereafters. Our Point A’s – whatever has happened in our lives to this point – only matter insofar as we let them create much better Point B’s. There is no longer a role for guilt if it drives you to the acknowledgement of truth and the embrace of so great an opportunity.
You like choice? Then choose a cause and legacy that will give a choice to tens of millions more, that will maximally breathe life into women and everyone, that will truly embrace the beautifully unique gifts we were given, and that will maturely champion responsibility and goodness. Most of us get more upset about a stubbed toe or traffic than the slaughter of over a billion innocent lives. Let’s do better, and let’s do so in a way that doesn’t allow us to stop.
